| Author |
Message |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 2841
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 11:47 am: |     |
I can only imagine what a thorn in the side we Christians are, who used to be SDA, to the SDA church and the GC. They would rather we be agnostic, atheist and leave them alone rather than speak out about the beliefs we learned at the knees of Adventists.
I started to write former above and decided not to as we are full fledged Christians now and that, in my mind is more than a former.
Keep us posted Jackob.
I will be praying for you as you go to those meetings.
God is in charge of everything and He is so awesome.
Diana |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4667
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2006 - 10:43 pm: | |
Oh, my goodnessóthis is sounding eerily familiar. This weekend Richard found a series of videos recording the "Ellen White Summit" held last November in Oregon. It was a weekend dedicated to defending Ellen White against her critics. The third session by Jud Lake from Southern Adventist University directly responded to the websites, Proclamation, and Dale Ratzlaff. Jud Lake also had another session in which he addressed Ellen's plagiarism and inspiration, calling her "plagiarism" merely "literary borrowing".
He explained that her inspiration was exactly the same as that of the Bible writers, but her FUNCTION was different. Her writings pointed to the Bibleóso of COURSE her writings are not equal to the Bible.
Their arguments are slick, "logical" arguments built on subtle straw-man premises. The church is concertedly creating a whole new method of teaching and defending Ellenóand this new method includes admitting they have handled her wrong in the past. NOW, however, they are telling the "truth".
It's actually rather sickeningóand guess what? Nothing has changed except the packaging. The videos are available at this link. Speakers include George Knight, Jud Lake, and Craig Newman (well, maybe I got Craig's last name wrong)--but here is the link:
http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/
I'd love to hear responses. I'm sensing that the church is developing a new strategy. All this is similar to that new book "Prophets are Human" by Graem Bradford. The last session of the meetings in the link above included the promise that there will be a strong focus on Ellen White apologetics at the 2007 camp meeting in Oregon.
Colleen |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 382
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 3:45 am: | |
Actually, when I just looked again at the schedule Jackob posted, I was surprised when I saw this part:
"17.00-18.30 Hermeneutics: How we can understand correctly the writings of Ellen White"
When casually looking I saw the word "hermeneutics" and you know, I generally expected to see the word "Bible" following it because that's a word we use for interpreting the *Bible*, so it was a bit jolting to see it applied to EGW. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 337
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 10:09 am: | |
Colleen,
I also sensed that the church is going to use another startegy, like that book of Graeme Bradford. What I will try to figure is how White Estate, which is an official voice will defend Ellen White. I will not be eager to hear how others want to defend Ellen White, if their voice is not endorsed by the general Conference. But William Fagal, representing White Estate, will be a credible official voice.
I'm trying to understand how the new strategy is functioning. Graeme Bradford, with the help of Bachiochhi, published a new book "More than a Prophet". He's arguing on the same line of thought as those presented at the summit whic Colleen mentioned, an his book is just a development of his previous book, "Prophets are Human".
What's surprising is that White Estate don't like this approach. They are planning to publish a review, but they already expressed their disagreement at http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/more-prophet.asp
quote: The Foreword and advertising incorrectly state that the manuscript was evaluated favorably by officers of the Ellen G. White Estate. In actuality, while recognizing elements of the book on which we can agree, the White Estate staff has strong concerns regarding several of the viewpoints expressed in the book.
Included among these concerns are the following:
* The book expresses the view that prophets in the New Testament and beyond generally carry less authority than Old Testament prophets, and that the individual and/or congregation must separate the wheat from the chaff in the messages even of genuine prophets. Such a view confirms people in the human tendency to accept what they like in inspired writings and to reject as ìchaffî the things with which they disagree.
* The book suggests that because Ellen White used sources in her writings relating to history, prophecy, health, or theology, the views she expressed may have originated more from her contemporaries than divine inspiration. Her depiction of end-time events, for example, as found in The Great Controversy, is portrayed as deriving primarily from the expectations of 19th century North American Adventists, having little application to todayís global society.
This arises my interest because it seems that White Estate seems to reject the humanization of Ellen White. but doing this, White Estate must defend the anti-trinitarian statements by making them look trinitarian.
Also there is another factor involved. I want to see if William Fagal will treat romanian adventists as stupid, or ignorant and will use only general statements as, "these are out of context quotations" without makin any reference to the context. But this approach will leave the SDA pastors disspointed, because they are expected to find real answers to their problems and not general statements which add nothing to the information already available.
If William Fagal will fly in Europa only to make bold statements without proofs, the metting will be a waste of time for all who will attend it with the real hope to find information which only an expert can provide. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 12:36 pm: | |
Jacob,
I understand the White Estate's concerns. Because if you demythologize Ellen enough, then people will buy less of her books. The only way the SDA church can keep credibility among their faithful is to keep Ellen White's writings on a par with the Bible.
I can't believe the low estimate that Bradford book has of scripture. If that Bradford book is allowed to become the norm, then the SDA church will continue on its path of other liberal mainstream denominations where they deny any authority at all to God's word. This is already happening.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4669
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 1:36 pm: | |
Yes, Stanóthey are systematically denigrating Scriptureówhile speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
I left out one significant speaker at the Gladstone Summit in my above post. I'll rename them and identify them:
George Knight, professor of church history at Andrews Univeristy (I believe now retired)
Craig Newborn, director of the Oakwood branch of the Ellen G White Estate
Jud Lake, professor or preaching and Adventist studies at Southern Adventist Univeristy
Jon Paulien, professor of New Testament Studies at Adnrews seminary.
These men espouse the supremacy of Scripture, but they do so while pointing out that the Bible writers were inspired exactly as Ellen was. Now, if Ellen was inspired exactly as were Luke, Isaiah, etc., then how is her opus less authoritative than Scripture? The crazy-making distinction that her FUNCTION was differentóit pointed toward the Bible as opposed to BEING the Bibleóis disingenuous to the max.
They also said that prophets don't always speak in their prophetic role. Sometimes they speak as mothers, wives, fathers, etc. So we can't criticize Ellen for telling her disobedient son that God doesn't love naughty little boys. She was merely speaking as a motherónever mind that similar statements have been in print since her lifetime.
I hope a few of you will be able to listen/watch these and give feedback. Here's a link where you can either find the videos or get the audio MP3 files: http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/
Colleen |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 207
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 1:50 pm: | |
Colleen, the statement of the Bible writers inspired just as Ellen was makes me absolutely crazy! How often have you read that Luke, Isaiah, John, Jeremiah, etc. went into convultions when they prophesied? I really don't recall Peter's eyes rolling into his head or that he stopped breathing when he had a vision. Really, the only people I can think of who were behaving that way were posessed by demons!
I truly believe that EGW's schtick was just that, schtick!
Also, Ellen speaking as a mother? That sounds like a mentally abusive mother to me...
Leigh Anne |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1520
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 2:03 pm: | |
Actually, EGW published those very letters of hers in the book An Appeal to the Youth in 1864. And she wrote: "In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God, upon the tables of stone, [...]" (Colporteur Ministry, page 126, paragraph 2.)
Here are a couple of quotes from the letters to her sons, as published in An Appeal to the Youth:
quote:"Learn, my dear Willie, to be patient, to wait others' time and convenience; then you will not get impatient and irritable. The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there." (An Appeal to the Youth, page 61, paragraph 3.)
"My Dear Henry and Edson: Dear children, your mother has not forgotten you.
[...]
"When you do wrong don't conceal your wrong, but heartily and honestly confess it. This I believe you will do. I have confidence in you that you have tried to do it. Continue to do so, and we shall love you better than if you kept your wrongs concealed. God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest. Be obedient, dear children." (An Appeal to the Youth, page 42, paragraphs 1-2.)
Interestingly, the White Estate tries to defend her saying that God does not love wicked children.
No wonder Edson said he wanted nothing to do with religion!
Jeremy
(Message edited by jeremy on September 26, 2006) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 2:16 pm: | |
Amazingly, at the above link, the White Estate actually shows that EGW contradicted herself later, when she wrote: "Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong;"
She must have seen that it did not have a good effect on her children. ;-)
She condemns herself many times in her writings.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4670
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 4:54 pm: | |
Thank you, Jeremy. I have such a strong sense, after watching those videos, that I am watching a whole new 50's-like era emergingóyou know, when the church published Questions on Doctrine in order to convicne (decieve) Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse that Adventism was just another evangelical church.
They used words that concealed the true meanings of SDA doctrine so evangelicals wouldn't pick up on what was REALLY meant, and simultaneously the faithful felt betrayed by the church.
It seems to be happening again in a new way.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 338
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 7:03 pm: | |
Some time ago when I shared with my wife the information from Ellen White ummit, she asked me why George Knight who's knowing all Ellen White's mistakes still believes in her. "By ignoring a lot of bad information" was my answer.
For example, Knight said that Ellen White pointed people to Jesus and to the Bible and never pointed to herself. It's a lie! When Ballenger attacked the sanctuary, Ellen White made herself the final authority, the final court of appeal, saying that God gave her light for all to know that Ballenger is wrong. Just by ignoring these clear anti-protestant position can Knight maintain his belief that Ellen White never pointed to herself.
Look at this quote from Ellen White. She's not arguing for Sola Scriptura, but for tradition
quote:"If the theories that Brother Ballenger presents were received, they would lead many to depart from the faith. They would counterwork the truths upon which the people of God have stood for the past fifty years. I am bidden to say in the name of the Lord that Elder Ballenger is following a false light. The Lord has not given him the message that he is bearing regarding the sanctuary service."
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4672
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 12:01 pm: | |
You're completely right, Jackob. Knight does not acknowlege the scope and reality of Ellen's false theology, self-promotion, and slander of people's characters.
He "re-invents" her, explaining that the things she wrote (such as God does not love naught children) were just the outpouring of a distraught mother or were evidences of her humannessónever acknowledging she herself disseminated those things to the church, claiming they were words from God. She herself said either all she wrote was from God or none of it was.
Knight et all have no business evaluating Ellen contrary to the standard she set for herself.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 342
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 8:56 am: | |
This is my first report from the meetings. I just arrived at home after one evening and one day who bored me more than I expected.
First of all, William Fagal was clear in his apology that all that Ellen White wrote were not her opinions, but revelations fro God, she always acted as a speaker for God, as His representative.
I'm not sure if the White Estate has the same apology in USA, giving the fact that members know a lot more awfull things about Ellen White's statements. Here a lot of bad information is not easily available.
He touched only a single issue in the debate about Ellen White trinitarian statements: he presented evidence that her later statements were actually her writings and not the works of the editors, as anti-trinitarians claim. This was his single target. He answered some questions, but he was silent about the early statements of EGW, about Jesus being exalted to an equal position with God, etc
The other important thing is that he used the word "beings", plural, as referring to the persons. He even quoted a typical reaction of the anti-trinitarians to a declaration of EGW, which showed that he believes that the three persons are not only distinct, but separate. I will come back later with details.
I left when the course about hermeneutics came, being so bored and so tired, most of the meeting being an insult to the common sense. I will come back with more information, now I must take a break from the issue of Ellen White, and rest a little. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4691
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 4:09 pm: | |
Jackob, thanks for reporting. It's interesting to hear how much more traditional the presentation is in Romania than similar presentations seem to be here.
The bottom line is the same: the church is not distancing itself from Ellen White. I'll be eager to read more of you reports and analyses.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 343
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 3:10 am: | |
Friday evening William Fagal established the biblical base for the existence of the prophetic gift in the SDa church. He did this in the most boring way, repeating the old arguments of the remnant church which keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:11).
Next he used the "pilot" illustration of Uriah Smith to show that they respect the Bible teachings that in the last days, God will give to His church a prophet to guide her in a safe way until His coming. The story is that some ship received a bok with instructions for navigation, but in the last part of the journey, the book said that they will be joined by a pilot who will bring the ship safely in the harbour.
What's interesting in the illustration is that by it, the adventists are revealing their unbiblical position. The book of instructions is the Bible, but if the Bible is sufficient, this means that following their instructions, the need for a pilot dissapears. But at some time, they need a pilot, because they have no sufficient information in their book to anchor the ship in the harbour. they need a pilot, and they are no longer guiding the ship after the instructions found in the book, but let the pilot do this job. The book was not good enough for the task, the pilot must came and finish the job.
the illustration is revealing that they now leave the book and put their entire trust in the pilot. They have no other options than to trust the pilot, because the book does not contain information about the final part of the journey. Only the pilot knows the safe way to the harbour. There are no indications in the book to verify if the pilot is doing a good job or not, because, if the book contains the information needed to verify if the pilot is doing a good job, you don't need the pilot. If you know the information to verify if the pilot is doing well the job, you know enough to do his job very well.
I guess that this illustration resumes very well the cultic mentality of adventism. They are thinking that they trust the Bible, but in reality they let the pilot do his job without verifying what he's doing. Because William Fagal used it, I can certainly say that this shows that the church truly deserves the label cult. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 344
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 4:11 am: | |
Saturday morning, Fagal wanted to show that the SDA church is indebted a lot to Ellen White, who was involved at every step in all aspects of the churhc.
I agree with this, because she is the founder and sustainer of the church. THe church is based on her, stays onher shoulders, and without her, there will be no SDA church. Allt he unbiblical doctrines will fall if she falls.
Hosea 12:13 "The LORD used a prophet to bring Israel up from Egypt, by a prophet he cared for him." the prophet was Moses, and Fagal used this text to show that Ellen White has the same importance for SDA church as Moses had for the Israel. And that the Lord uses Ellen White as He used Moses. He does not state this explicitly, but the unspoken words were "if you are disobeying Ellen WHite, your are diobeying God", because israelites who disobeyed Moses, in reality they rebelled against God.
Another aspect is worth mentioning here. Talking about the period in which adventist leaders studied the Bible for arriving at the truth about prophecy, Fagal quoted Ellen White about how she was taken in vision and a clear explanation was given her about difficult texts. Fagal added that the leaders saw themselves that the interpretation from the Bible received in vision is correct by checking the Bible. After him, they accepted the interpretation because they verifyed it, not because it was given in vision.
He emphasized the role of Ellen White in preserving the unity of the church by her involvement in descentralization of the church organization. He said that the church of Europe was on the verge of a schism, ready to separate from the church in USA. The descentralization, said Fagal, prevented this break to become a reality.
He talked about testing the prophets, and the first test is the fulfillment of prophecies. he said that Ellen White predicted the Civil War in the USA and that this war will be long and not short as many believed, the World War I, the spread of spiritualism beginnign with Fox sisters.
Of course, people who are better informed does not buy these proofs, but here in Romania, it is usually to make bold claims.
Another test of a true prophet is the opposition to the work of the true prophet. He used Jeremiah as an illustration, Jeremiah who was accused of being influenced by Baruch. He said that the enemies of Ellen White accused her of writing under the influence of others. This is not a valid analogy, because there were many false prophets who prophesied for the sake of money, being influenced by others.
"Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry "Peace" when they have something to eat, but declare war against him who puts nothing into their mouths" Micah 3:5
Of course, he forgot to mention that a sign of false prophecy is to be influenced by money in your activity, to prophecy for gaining money (selling the books is a good example) |
|
